MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111205179 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v62i4.17584

Revitalization of minority languages as a way to promote well-being in the North

2003· review· en· W2111205179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Niina Kunnas

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinority languageLife expectancyPsychicPsychologyPopulationPolitical scienceLinguisticsSociologyMedicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In this paper I discuss the interdependence between the revitalization of minority languages and well-being at the population level. OBJECTIVES: The paper aims to describe the history and current status of three northern minority languages, Kven, Meänkieli and Viena Karelian, and the ways in which revitalization of these languages and restoration of their linguistic rights could enhance the well-being of the speakers of these languages. METHODS: A number of research findings are presented to show that being a minority language speaker constitutes an economic, social and health risk. The potential psychic and physical adverse effects of linguistic exploitation are also discussed. RESULTS: It is further demonstrated in the paper that non-existent linguistic rights may have a negative impact, not only on the overall well-being of the minority, but also on the group's economic status. Positive findings on minority status are presented concerning the speakers of Swedish in Finland and the speakers of French in Canada. CONCLUSION: It is also shown that the development of a minority language and functional linguistic rights may prolong the life expectancy and well-being of the minority members and have a positive economic impact, not only on the minority, but also on society as a whole.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.524
Teacher spread0.450 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207